GROVER CURES HOUSE posted:Neither is solar. Solar is way worse for the environment than Nuclear too You know what, gently caress it, let's just keep burning fossil fuels
|
|
#
¿
Sep 17, 2014 17:19
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 21, 2024 03:55 |
|
KoRMaK posted:I would think that it would continuously apply heat to keep it above freezing, so refreeze wouldn't happen. How environmental does it sound to "continuously apply heat" to the highway system.
|
|
|
#
¿
Sep 18, 2014 01:31
|
|
cheese posted:Probably more than "continuously pump out kajillions of tons of greenhouse gases until the earth enters a run away green house effect and we all die", to be fair. Actually probably just the same because solar roadways assume we're still using cars by the metric fuckton, which means the fossil fuel is getting burned anyways. It's not a question of "continue to burn fossil fuels at the current rate" or "solar roadways" both of them are monumentally stupid ideas that do more harm than good. There are plenty of reasonable ways to move forward if we wanted to (spoiler alert, the government doesn't want to and won't)- http://www.ted.com/talks/james_hansen_why_i_must_speak_out_about_climate_change see here for an incredibly easy one that makes about 1000000x more sense.
|
|
|
#
¿
Sep 18, 2014 02:27
|
|
cheese posted:I totally agree, I'm just not sure if continuously applying a small amount of head on roads during the winter to keep ice from forming is an environmental issue of any note. Struggling to think of what the negative consequences could be. Small amount of heat? Pop quiz, what temperature does the panel have to be for the water on top of it to freeze? Now look at the climate of the United States. Now look at the size of the highway system. See if you can't figure it out. Beyond that, just take a look at what our highway system costs now and ask yourself how much more expensive maintenance is going to get when you've replaced miles of asphalt with miles of solar panels FOR NO GOOD REASON. Just build the solar panels by themselves if you want them, there's just no goddamn reason to hide solar panels on the ground. It's not like we have a lack of space to put them.
|
|
|
#
¿
Sep 18, 2014 02:41
|
|
KoRMaK posted:Would the solar panels be able to generate enough energy to melt the snow? Does the solar panel optimize the sunlight into heat, or waste energy in the process (probably the former) I don't think you understand that "heating the panels above freezing in below 0 conditions" is actually one of the smaller problems with solar roadways. You need to read more and watch less youtube videos. quote:I don't really consider them green. When something goes wrong, it goes colossally wrong and stays there for a long time. Longer than oil accidents. Nope, this is actually factually incorrect (but welcome to the ever growing anti-nuclear for no good reason club) Pop quiz, is nuclear or solar power more dangerous? http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Magazines/Bulletin/Bull211/21104091117.pdf Whoops, turns out Solar is near 10x worse than Nuclear. Why you might ask? Because Nuclear actually can generate a reasonable amount of power in a small area whereas you'll need millions of solar panels(just kidding- even millions wouldnt cut it) to make up even a fraction of what nuclear power does, can, and will continue to deliver(assuming people pull their heads out of their asses). quote:What about those "25 sq km solar panel farm in the dessert" articles that say an array that size could produce all the power needed for the world or a continent? And let's forget about attenuation over the lines. What about them? Sounds like made up fantasy bullshit that just popped in to your head.
|
|
|
#
¿
Sep 18, 2014 02:55
|
|
JawKnee posted:things very very rarely go wrong, and that's no reason to not consider them green especially when actually viable alternatives for large power systems not in hydro heavy areas is coal (worse) or the status quo (also worse on all possible metrics) Hydro is almost assuredly worse than Nuclear too. It has horrific environmental impacts (even if it doesn't emit a shitload of CO2) and can almost gaurantee its more deadly/dangerous as well. Also, fwiw when I said solar was 10x more deadly than nuclear, that's only for the workers. If you extend it to the general population it's closer to 500 times more dangerous to them. That's how economies of scale work people. "Nuclear accidents go colossally wrong" I mean what the gently caress are you talking about? There's been a grand total of ONE nuclear accident that even approaches "bad" and I really don't feel like explaining why Chernobyl will never happen again (for so many reasons) down with slavery fucked around with this message at 03:02 on Sep 18, 2014 |
|
|
#
¿
Sep 18, 2014 02:59
|
|
KoRMaK posted:Is the explanation for that stat in the pdf you linked? http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Magazines/Bulletin/Bull211/21104091117.pdf Yes. Table 1 (pg16) has the "man days lost per unit of energy generated" for both workers and the public tldr: quote:How can unconventional technologies like wind or solar thermal (the "power tower" concept)
|
|
|
#
¿
Sep 18, 2014 03:20
|
|
KoRMaK posted:Then what the gently caress have I been worrying about this whole time. How long does an area remain unsafe after a meltdown? So if this is true, why isn't Chernobyl cleaned up and inhabited? Or is it because it's only like 30-40 years old, and in another 20 it will be fine? It is inhabited, just not by humans. You can also go there as a human... but living there wouldn't be a good idea. Probably not as bad as living next to a coal plant though. quote:Still though, 30-40 years is most of a lifetime. It would really be bad if in my lifetime I had to abandon my nearest biggest city and all the infrastructure. CHERNOBYL WILL NEVER HAPPEN AGAIN quote:I guess I might be conflating nuclear bomb explosion, nuclear fallout, and a nuclear power station meltdown. Does the one that takes 2000 years give off enough radiation to make you sick and mess up your reproductive mechanisms? Please go read about this and stop posting. D&D isn't "I don't know the difference between a nuclear reactor and a bomb, please explain". Try Ask/Tell
|
|
|
#
¿
Sep 18, 2014 03:26
|
|
|
Regardless, a carbon tax will raise the price of burning fossil fuels, which we desperately need to do.
|
|
|
#
¿
Sep 22, 2014 02:07
|
|
Rent-A-Cop posted:All increasing the price of burning fossil fuels will do is gently caress the poor. Unless the carbon tax is redistributed per capita directly to the population  http://www.ted.com/talks/james_hansen_why_i_must_speak_out_about_climate_change?language=en "All legislation will gently caress the poor" might honestly be accurate, but I mean, where does that leave us? No legislation fucks the poor, politically viable legislation fucks the poor, no win situation there.
|
|
|
#
¿
Sep 22, 2014 03:18
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 21, 2024 03:55 |
|
Rent-A-Cop posted:If we're in "redistribute carbon taxes to the poor" fantasyland we may as well just wish for nationalized energy production. I would unironically support this so? Bottom line is that it needs to become more costly to emit carbon if we're going to continue down the path we are without destroying the climate. How you want to get there is up to you. I gave you an easy way, the fact that our political system is so hosed up isn't really my problem. My realistic assessment of the situation is "we're hosed" but that's less fun to talk about.
|
|
|
#
¿
Sep 22, 2014 03:25
|
|